ComplaintsforMiddendorf & Reuss Construction

• Initial Complaint

  07/03/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Middendorf & Reuss were the general contractor selected to rebuild our home after a fire in 2020. They sent us to ********** Flooring, Over the last three years, our flooring has failed in multiple areas. ********** Flooring is claiming it is a moisture problem, despite **** Middendorf being present when ServPro conducted independent moisture testing that showed no excessive moisture or humidity in our home. Middendorf & Reuss has not helped resolve this situation and keeps punting the blame to other people.

  

  Business response

  07/28/2023

  Dear Sir or Madam

  I am responding to ***** *******’s Complaint against Middendorf & Reuss Construction Co. and ********** Flooring referenced above. After reviewing the ******* complaint to the BBB regarding flooring issues at their home at 8017 Crystal Lane, Troy, Illinois, we note several significant facts that *******s fail to disclose in their document. *******s describe their home as “nearly brand new”; however, while it is true that the original entire wood frame structure was heavily damaged in a major fire and was indeed built new under a fire insurance claim, this is a split-level home originally built in 1967. The rebuilding was done pursuant to the attached contract dated 12/16/2019 between *******s and M&R. All reconstruction work was done maintaining the original 1967 foundation and concrete basement and floor. This home is a new home sitting on a 56-year-old foundation with unknown (probably non-existent) basement moisture barrier and unknown foundation drainage, if any. The house has no sump pit. At some point during construction the homeowner told **** ********** that he had basement water leakage prior to the fire. The job was mostly paid by the fire insurance which dictated that the original floor framing attached to the original concrete basement not be replaced and the new framing of the rebuilt home Middendorf was required to build on the existing foundation. *******s excluded landscaping from the scope of work covered by the M&R contract, and they chose and employed directly a landscape contractor, Derek Johnson, who had no contractual relationship with M&R. On May 16, 2020 a major rainstorm inundated the area where *******s’ home is located and due to defective grading of the *******s’ front yard, a huge volume of water pooled in front the *******’s home near the front-facing basement windows and apparently flowed down against the basement wall and under the basement floor leaking up under the basement floor slab and through the new flooring that was installed by ********** Flooring as a subcontractor to M&R. *******s provided many photos in support of their claim but most showed items that had already been repaired by ********** Flooring. In spite of their statement about being “being completely transparent”, *******s failed to include the images of water coming through the basement vinyl flooring that had been installed by ********** Flooring under its sub-contract with M&R. They also failed to provide you photos of the pool of water against the front of the house and the video of the water flooding back up from the white downspout with the red colored mulch and garden hose that is at the front corner of the house right next to the flooded area. That red mulch had not been placed nor had the landscaping been changed at the time M&R installed the new gutters and downspouts into the existing black plastic under-yard drain piping. At that time those drains worked well with zero backups. When the flooding was occurring on May 16, 2020, ******* contacted **** Middendorf, and he and his chief foreman went out and personally worked to shovel diversion trenches in the ******* rear yard to re-direct water away from the basement. Middendorf had NOT created the flood condition which was done entirely by the *******s’ chosen landscaping contractor. M&R had no responsibility for this landscape-related flood and offered this emergency assistance only as a goodwill gesture. *******s complain the Middendorf failed to inform ********** of the basement flood; however, Middendorf has absolutely no contractual obligation to manage *******s’ flood damage abatement or to discuss that event with anyone. When **** Middendorf was assisting ******* on May 17, 2020 regarding the recent flooding, he strongly recommended that ******* submit an insurance claim or at least hire a flood abatement company to deal with the consequences, but ******* insisted that he could handle it. ********** Flooring was a subcontractor to Middendorf & Reuss during the fire reconstruction and came back to the *******s’ house on many separate occasions to attempt to satisfy the *******s who were complaining about some flooring issues. a. Surface damage in a home office The issue was the result of a wheeled office chair rolling back and forth on the flooring without a protection mat. The same issue occurred in a child’s bedroom. ********** voluntarily replaced the damaged area without charging *******. This was done for customer goodwill, but such damage is specifically excluded under the manufacturer’s warranty. See attached. b. Damage to basement flooring The *******s make various amateur speculations regarding the basement flooring and discuss moisture tests and specifications from other flooring manufacturers but clearly hid the flooding event from ********** which they only found out about the flood months after they began attempting to sort out the cause of the basement flooring failure. Flooding is expressly excluded under the warranty. The real problem with the ******* home is the 56-year-old foundation that is simply not up to modern standards regarding damp-proofing or under-floor drainage, and then they selected their own landscape contractor who created a pooling area against the front of the home and also apparently damaged the downspout underground drains so that the water in the gutters could not escape and flooded back up and out of the piping directly against the foundation and obviously found a path of least-resistance down along the basement wall and under the floor and then up into The room. *******s on May 16, 2020 email with the attached images detail this front yard and basement flooding quite well. That email with flooding images is included in the folder available through the link. It is telling that ******* failed to include this in his BBB complaint. Well, ******* really need to do without the basement floor install proper drainage. I have some pump to eliminate is chronic issue that no amount of vapor barrier can overcome.
  
  None of the flooring issues ******* complained about is covered by a for a warranty and are a result of poor maintenance, failure to follow, manufactures guidelines for flooring, protection, from damage from chairs, and last, but not least, the defective basement in the basement flood.
  
  We trust this response you will see that the *******s are miss using the BBB forum in a way that potentially harms these honorable contractors by Miss characterizing the FAFSA annoying crucial details that clearly point to the homeowner and not the contractor flooring subcontractor. The real culprit is not Middnedorf & Reuss Construction, Inc nor ********** Flooring but rather *******’s antiquated 56 year old, basement walls and lack of moisture controls and seepage through the basement walls and under the floor, as well as *******’s on failure to care for the vinyl floor.
  
  Middnedorf & Reuss Construction &  ********** Flooring have gone above and beyond any contractual obligation and providing free service and repairs without a charge for issues, not covered by warranty, an attempt to solve the problems which are due to *******’s own neglect.
  
  Middnedorf & Reuss Construction and ********** Flooring made multiple generous attempts to satisfy the *******s even though nothing of the ******* complaint was the fault of either Middnedorf & Reuss Construction nor ********** Flooring. *******s, for sure these complaints about the flooring is not based on any objective fact or legal obligation of either company.
  

  Customer response

  08/01/2023

  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  

  Middendorf & ********** are now claiming that our foundation is not up to appropriate standards, but as the contractor and subcontractor, whom we hired for their expertise, should they have not ensured that our foundation was suitable for the building of a modern home on top of it, and should the flooring contractor not have recommended against installing this type of flooring without replacing the foundation if it in fact was not suitable? We told them numerous times prior to beginning construction to make absolutely sure the foundation was sound before proceeding because we did not want moisture problems in the basement. 

   

  Middendorf’s claim that they were required to build on the existing foundation is false, as we agreed to, and paid out of pocket for many upgrades to the home that insurance did not cover such as code upgrades, a larger electrical service, upgraded plumbing fixtures, and upgraded drywall finishing. If Middendorf had given us any indication that the original foundation was not suitable for building upon we would have immediately gone back to the insurance company and or paid for it ourselves. It makes absolutely no sense that a respectable and competent contractor would build an expensive modern home on top of a failing foundation without ever mentioning it to anyone for consideration?
  

  
  Every time they respond they have a different excuse.

  
  Also false is Middendorf’s claims the flood in May 2020 was caused by the landscaper. It was in fact proven to have been caused by the inadequate gutter and downspout installation, which that subcontractor later remedied. Middendorf agreed separately to fix the leak that day because while they believed it was the landscapers fault at that time, they arranged a quid pro quo exchange because the landscaper agreed to repair a fallen retaining wall that Middendorf’s crew had destroyed by driving into it with heavy equipment. Middendorf’s response to the flood was not goodwill on Middendorf’s part but a response to minimize costs of repairing damage they had caused. 

   

  Middendorf was our representative at the time of the flood and should have made ********** aware of it if it in fact endangered the warranty.  They apparently never mentioned it to ********** and assured us the floor would be fine. Now they are staying that the moisture is the problem.
  

  Either the moisture is the problem and it is Middendorf’s fault, or it is not, and it is McCullough’s fault. They need to get together and decide. It is certainly no fault of ours.  

  . 

  Their response to this only cements our conviction  that Middendorf & ********** are responsible for our flooring failure.

  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** *******

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩